Subject: Re: [Monami6] Need I-D reviews

From: Andy Huang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:01:51 +0800

Hi, all

I reviewed two drafts and here are some comments.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-01.txt
---------------------------------------
section 1:
comment: In the fourth paragraph, I advise to replace correspondent nodes 
with home agent to illustate the fact that CoA will be overwritten. After 
all, registration with CN is not necessary for mobility management, it's 
only for route optimization.

Section 3.2
"The node can detect a binding invalidation by packets loss or ICMP error 
messages such as ICMP_UNREACHABLE."

comment: packets loss may be a reason to change the binding entry, but in 
fact it's nearly impossible for node to change the binding entry just 
because of packets loss, there are too many factor resulting in packets 
loss.

Section 4.3.1
   "If needed, the Binding Unique Identifier sub-option is included in
   the Binding Update, Binding Acknowledgment, Binding Refresh Request,
   or Binding Error messages."

   ...

   "Priority/Status"

comment: lack of details , for example, if this sub-option is included in 
Binding Refresh Request, what does Priority/Status field mean? should it be 
ingored?

Section 5.4
comment: There is a problem. If MN has registered a CoA without BID to HA 
and then at some time it finds out that it has multiple CoAs due to some 
reasons, it need to register multiple CoAs with HA. What should it do? first 
de-registering the CoA without BID and then sending bulk registration to HA?

Section 5.5
   "Note that when the mobile node does not want to return home even if
   one of interfaces is attached to the home link, the mobile node MUST
   disable the interface.  Otherwise, address duplication will be
   observed because the Home Agent still defend the Home Address..."

comment: what do address duplication mean here? I don't think the fact that 
HA defends the HoA will result in address duplication.

Section 5.6
"   o  A mobile node has multiple interfaces, but it wants to send
      Binding Updates for all Care-of Addresses from a specific
      interface which has wider bandwidth depending on interface's"

comment:
About the second situation, it looks stange to me that using Alternate 
Care-of Address sub-option here. Why not using Care-of address field of 
Binding Unique Identifier sub-option to carry these CoAs?

There is another problem here. If Binding Unique Identifier sub-option with 
C flag set and Alternate Care-of Address sub-option are both included in the 
Binding Update, which CoA (CoA in Binding Unique Identifier sub-option or in 
Alternate Care-of Address sub-option) will be registered? Or such a 
situation is illegal?

By the way, I don't know why these options are called sub-option, such as 
Alternate Care-of Address sub-option, Binding Unique Identifier sub-option. 
In RFC3775, there are all called as option.

Section 5.7.
comment: If MN sends bulk registration with HA, does HA need to reply with 
multiple Binding Acknowledge?

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-01.txt
---------------------------------------
I'm confused by the load sharing and load balancing, what's the difference 
between them? From the draft it seems to me load sharing is about the 
network traffic while load balancing is focused on node itself. If so, it's 
better to describe it in more detail.

section 4.6
I don't think preference settings are goals or benefits. It's just a method 
to realize the goals.

Section 5.1
As I said, preference settings are not real goals. In case of one interface 
and multiple prefixes, preference(address selection) does exist in the view 
of technology, but what can users get from the this kind of technical 
preference? Generally speaking, one interface means just one kind of L2 
access technology, there is little benefits that users can get.

Section 6.1
<!--Source-->Address Selection, is it a typo?
----------------------------------------

Best regards
Zhigang Huang

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thierry Ernst" <[email-masked]>
To: "ml-ietf-monami6" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 12:49 AM
Subject: [Monami6] Need I-D reviews

>
> Dear all,
>
> The 3 WG I-D as currently available on the Monami6 page
>
> Analysis of Multihoming in Mobile IPv6
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-01.txt
>
> Motivations and Scenarios for Using Multiple Interfaces and Global
> Addresses
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario-01.txt
>
> Multiple Care-of Addresses Registration
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-01.txt
>
>
> are in pretty good shape, and we think that it is the right time to get
> some in-depth reviews. We would be happy to get some volunteers; if you
> are willing to, please report to Nicolas and I.
>
> Thanks,
> Monami6 Chairs.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Monami6 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
> 

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6